The expression "third element" or "third persons" was introduced into circulation, if we are not mistaken, by the Samara vice-governor, Mr. Kondoidi, in his speech at the opening of the Samara provincial zemstvo assembly in 1900, to designate persons "belonging neither to the administration nor to the representatives of estates." The growth in the number and influence of such persons serving in the zemstvo in the capacity of doctors, technicians, statisticians, agronomists, pedagogues, and so forth, has long already attracted the attention of our reactionaries, who have also dubbed these hated "third persons" "zemstvo bureaucrats."

It must be said in general that our reactionaries—and in this, of course, the entire higher bureaucracy is included—demonstrate good political instinct. They are so experienced in all manner of struggles against opposition, against popular "rebellions," against sectarians, against uprisings, against revolutionaries, that they keep themselves constantly "on guard" and understand far better than any naive simpletons and "honest nags" the irreconcilability of autocracy with any sort of independence, honesty, independence of convictions, the pride of genuine knowledge. Having thoroughly absorbed the spirit of servility and bureaucratic indifference to substance that reigns throughout the entire hierarchy of Russian officialdom, they regard suspiciously all those who do not resemble Gogol's Akaky Akakievich{113} or, employing a more contemporary comparison, the man in the box{114}.

And indeed: if persons executing one or another public function are to be valued not by their official position, but by their knowledge and merits—then does this not lead logically and inevitably to freedom of public opinion and public control, which examines this knowledge and these merits? Does this not undermine at the root those privileges of estates and ranks by which alone autocratic Russia is upheld? Listen to how that same Mr. Kondoidi motivated his dissatisfaction:

"It happens," said he, "that representatives of estates, without sufficiently verified grounds, heed the words of intellectuals, even if they are merely hired employees in the zemstvo administration, solely on the basis of reference to science or teachings from newspaper and journal writers." How is that? Simple "hired employees," yet they presume to instruct the "representatives of estates"! Incidentally: the zemstvo councillors of whom the vice-governor speaks are in fact members of an institution without estate restrictions; but since in our country everything and everyone is permeated with estate distinctions, since the zemstvos, under the new statute, have lost a huge portion of their classless character, then for brevity one can indeed say that in Russia there are two ruling "classes": 1. the administration and 2. the representatives of estates. There is no place for a third element in an estate monarchy. And if obstinate economic development increasingly undermines the estate foundations themselves through the growth of capitalism and calls forth the need for "intellectuals," whose numbers constantly increase, then one must inevitably expect that the third element will strive to expand the narrow confines allotted to it.

"The dreams of persons belonging neither to the administration nor to the representatives of estates in the zemstvo," said that same Mr. Kondoidi, "bear only a fantastic character, but may, if one admits political tendencies at their foundation, also have a harmful aspect."

The admission of "political tendencies"—this is merely a diplomatic expression of the conviction that they exist. And "dreams" are what are called here, if you will, all assumptions flowing—for a doctor—from the interests of medical practice, for a statistician—from the interests of statistics, and not taking account of the interests of the ruling estates. In themselves these dreams are fantastic, but they nourish political discontent, you understand.

But here is an attempt by another administrator, the governor of one of the central provinces, to offer a different justification for dissatisfaction with the third element. According to his words, the activities of the zemstvo in the province entrusted to him "with each passing year increasingly depart from those fundamental principles upon which the Statute on zemstvo institutions{115} is founded." This Statute calls upon the local population to oversee matters concerning local welfare and needs; meanwhile, in consequence of the indifferent attitude of the majority of landowners toward the right granted them, "the zemstvo assemblies have assumed the character of mere formality, while affairs are conducted by the administrations, the character of which leaves much to be desired." This "has led to the formation of extensive chancelleries at the administrations and the hiring of specialists for zemstvo service—statisticians, agronomists, pedagogues, sanitary doctors, and so forth—who, feeling their educational and sometimes even intellectual superiority over zemstvo activists, began to display ever greater independence, which is especially achieved through the opening of various conferences in the province and councils at the administrations. As a result, all zemstvo management has come to be in the hands of persons having nothing in common with the local population." Although "among these persons there are very many individuals who are entirely well-intentioned and deserve full respect, they cannot regard their service otherwise than as a means of livelihood, and local welfare and needs can interest them only insofar as their personal well-being depends upon them." "In zemstvo affairs, in the opinion of the provincial governor, a hired employee cannot take the place of a proprietor." This justification can be called both more cunning and more frank, depending on one's perspective. It is more cunning in that it passes over in silence the political tendencies and attempts to reduce the grounds of its judgment exclusively to the interests of local welfare and needs. It is more frank in that it directly opposes the "hired employee" to the proprietor. This is the long-standing point of view of Russian Kits Kitychs{116}, who in hiring any "little teacher" are guided first and foremost and above all by market prices for this type of professional services. The real masters of everything—the proprietors—thus speaks the representative of that very camp from which constant praise is poured forth for Russia with its firm, independent of everyone and standing above classes authority, delivered, thank goodness, from that dominion over national life by selfish interests which we see in the corrupted parliamentarism of Western countries. And once the proprietor is master, then he must be master also of the medical, statistical, and educational "affairs": our pompadour does not hesitate to draw this conclusion, which contains a direct acknowledgment of the political supremacy of the propertied classes. And more than that: he does not hesitate—and this is especially curious—to acknowledge that these "specialists" feel their educational and sometimes even intellectual superiority over zemstvo activists. Well, against intellectual superiority, of course, there are no remedies except stern measures…

And so, recently our reactionary press was presented with a particularly convenient occasion to repeat the call for these stern measures. The unwillingness of intellectuals to permit themselves to be treated as mere hired employees, as sellers of labor power (rather than as citizens executing certain public functions), has always led, from time to time, to conflicts of zemstvo administration officials with doctors who collectively tendered resignations, with engineers, and so forth. In recent times, however, conflicts between zemstvo administrations and statisticians have assumed directly epidemic proportions.

In *Iskra* it was noted already in May (No. 4) that local authorities (in Yaroslavl) had long been casting sidelong glances at statistics and after the March events in St. Petersburg had indeed carried out a "purification" of the bureau and proposed to its director to "henceforth accept students with strict selection, so that no one could even think that they might ever turn out to be unreliable." In a correspondent's report "*Intrigue* in Vladimir on the Klyazma" (*Iskra* No. 5, June), there was depicted the general situation of suspected statistics and the reasons for the disfavor it enjoyed from the governor, factory owners, and landowners. The dismissal of Vladimir statisticians for sending a telegram expressing sympathy for Annensky (beaten at Kazan Square on March 4) led to the practical closure of the bureau, and since statisticians from other towns refused to serve in a zemstvo that did not know how to defend the interests of its employees, the local gendarmerie had to come forward in the role of intermediary between the dismissed statisticians and the governor. "A gendarme appeared at the quarters of some statisticians and proposed to them to submit requests again for entry into service at the bureau," but his mission met complete failure. Finally, in the August issue (No. 7) of *Iskra* there was recounted "an incident in the Ekaterinoslav zemstvo," in which "the pasha" Mr. Rodyianko (chairman of the provincial zemstvo administration) dismissed statisticians for non-execution of an "order" to keep a journal and by this dismissal provoked the resignation of all other members of the bureau and protest letters from Kharkov statisticians (cited in the same issue of *Iskra*). Further into the woods—more firewood. The Kharkov pasha intervened, Mr. Gordeenko (also chairman of the provincial zemstvo administration), and declared to the statisticians of "his" zemstvo that he would not tolerate "any consultations of employees within the administration's walls on questions not pertaining to official duties." Scarcely had the Kharkov statisticians put their intention into effect to demand the dismissal of the spy in their midst (Antonych), when the administration dismissed the head of the statistical bureau, thereby again provoking the departure of all the statisticians.

To what degree these occurrences agitated the entire mass of zemstvo employees in statistics is evident, for example, from the letter of Vyatka statisticians, who attempted to substantiate carefully their unwillingness to join the movement and were for this with justice named in *Iskra* (No. 9) "Vyatka strikebreakers."

But *Iskra*, of course, marked only certain cases, far from all the conflicts which occurred, according to reports in legal newspapers, besides those in the provinces of Petersburg, Olonets, Nizhny Novgorod, Tauride, and Samara (we include among the conflicts here also cases of the dismissal of several statisticians at once, since these cases provoked strong discontent and ferment). To what degree the suspicion of provincial authorities and their brazenness could reach is evident, for example, from the following:

"The director of the Tauride bureau, S. M. Bleklov, in the report presented to the administration 'On the Survey of the Dnieper District in May and June 1901' recounts that the work in this district was accompanied by unprecedented conditions: although admitted by the governor to carry out their duties, furnished with the requisite documents and having, on the basis of an order by the provincial authorities, the right to assistance from local authorities, the researchers were surrounded by extreme suspicion on the part of the district police, who followed them at every step, expressing their distrust in the most crude form, reaching the point that, according to the words of one peasant, behind the statisticians rode a constable and asked the peasants whether 'the statisticians were not propagandizing harmful ideas against the state and fatherland.' The statisticians were obliged, according to Mr. Bleklov, 'to encounter various obstacles and difficulties which not only hindered the work but also deeply wounded feelings of personal dignity… Often the statisticians found themselves in the position of some sort of suspects regarding whom a secret inquiry was being conducted, well-known to everyone, however, and relative to whom it was considered necessary to give warning. From this everyone can understand what an unbearably heavy moral state they had frequently to experience.'"

A not bad illustration of the history of zemstvo-statistical conflicts and of the character of oversight of the "third element" in general!

It is not surprising that reactionary press fell upon the new "rebels." *Moskovsky Vedomosti* published a thunderous editorial "Strike of Zemstvo Statisticians" (No. 263, Sept. 24) and a special article "The Third Element" by Mr. N. A. Znamensky (No. 279, Oct. 10). The "third element" has "grown conceited," wrote the newspaper, and it responds with "systematic opposition and strike" to attempts to introduce "necessary service discipline." The blame for everything lies with the zemstvo liberals, who have loosened the reins on the employees.

"There is no doubt whatsoever that a certain systematization of zemstvo assessment and statistical work has been undertaken by the most level-headed and rational zemstvo activists, who were unwilling to allow indiscipline any further in their subordinate administrations under the liberal-oppositional flag. Both opposition and strikes should finally open their eyes to whom they are dealing with in the person of that intellectual proletariat which, wandering from one province to another, engaged not so much in statistical investigations as in the enlightenment of local youth in the social-democratic spirit.

In any case, in the form of 'zemstvo statistical conflicts' the sensible part of zemstvo activists receives a useful lesson for itself. We believe that it will now see quite clearly what a serpent, under the guise of the 'third element,' the zemstvo institutions have warmed upon their own breast."{146}

We, for our part, also have no doubt that these cries and howls of the faithful watchdog of autocracy (it is known that Katkov himself called himself such, and he managed for so long to "charge" *M. Ved.* with his spirit) will "open the eyes" of many who do not yet fully understand the complete irreconcilability of autocracy with the interests of social development, with the interests of the intelligentsia in general, with the interests of any genuine public cause not consisting of embezzlement and betrayal.

For us, as Social-Democrats, this small picture of the campaign against the "third element" and "zemstvo-statistical conflicts" should serve as an important lesson. We must draw new faith in the omnipotence of the workers' movement led by us, seeing that the agitation kindled in the advanced revolutionary class is transmitted to other classes and strata of society, that it has already led not only to an unprecedented upsurge of revolutionary spirit in the student body{147}, but also to the beginning awakening of the countryside, and to the strengthening of self-confidence and readiness for struggle in such social groups which (as groups) have hitherto remained little responsive.

Social agitation is growing in Russia throughout the entire people, in all its classes, and our duty, the duty of revolutionary Social-Democrats, is to direct all our efforts toward being able to take advantage of it, toward explaining to the advanced working intelligentsia what ally it has both in the peasantry, and in the student body, and in the intelligentsia in general, toward teaching it to make use of the sparks of public protest that flare up now here, now there. We shall be able to fulfill the role of the advanced fighter for freedom only when the working class, led by a militant revolutionary party, not forgetting for a moment its special position in contemporary society and its special worldwide historical tasks of liberating humanity from economic slavery, at the same time raises the general national banner of the struggle for freedom and draws beneath this banner all those whom Messrs. Sipyagin, Kondoidi, and this entire gang are so assiduously pushing into the ranks of the discontented from the most diverse strata of society.

For this it is necessary only that we absorb into our movement not only the unswervingly revolutionary theory worked out by the century-long development of European thought, but also the revolutionary energy and revolutionary experience bequeathed to us by our West European and Russian predecessors, and not slavishly adopt all manner of forms of opportunism, from which the relatively less affected western comrades of ours are beginning to free themselves, and which so powerfully retard our path to victory.

Before the Russian proletariat now stands the most difficult, but at the same time the most rewarding revolutionary task: to crush the enemy whom the much-suffering Russian intelligentsia was unable to overcome, and to take its place in the ranks of the international army of socialism.